11/14/16

1

Human-Computer Interaction IS4300

P6 – Software Prototyping n  DUE NOW n  IMPORTANT:

n  Your system must actually run and support your 3+ tasks to some level of fidelity.

n  Other students in the class must be able to download your software on any readily available computer and walk through the 3 tasks with little or nor help from you.

11/14/16

2

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

n  Def.: “the study of how people work together using computer technology”

n  Examples of systems that you use? n  email n  shared databases/hypertext n  video conferencing n  chat systems n  real-time shared applications

n  collaborative writing, drawing, games

Groupware n  Groupware denotes the technology that

people use to work together n  “systems that support groups of people

engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment.”

n  CSCW studies the use of groupware n  “CSCW is the study of the tools and

techniques of groupware as well as their psychological, social, and organizational effects.”

11/14/16

3

Collaboration n  What is “collaboration”?

n  How do we classify applications?

n  Frequently people need to cooperate n  create/modify documents, drawings, designs

n  Two key ways n  at different times (asynchronously)

n  see changes previous workers have made

n  simultaneously (synchronously) n  actions taken by user must be seen immediately

CSCW apps aka Groupware

same place different place

synchronous communication

asynchronous communication

•  SMS, IM •  MUDs •  Shared work surfaces •  Shared PCs/editors •  Shared calendar

•  email •  bulletin board, USENET

•  argumentation •  co-authoring (word) •  PARC Tab

•  smart meeting rooms •  shared PCs/editors

11/14/16

4

Collaboration Shuman & Twobly, The Real Power of Collaboration, 2009

n  Collaboration is a purposeful, strategic way of working that leverages the resources of each party for the benefit of all by coordinating activities and communicating information within an environment of trust and transparency.

Taxonomy of Collaboration Camarinha-Matos, et al, 2006

11/14/16

5

Types of Cooperation Dix

n  Focused partnerships n  users who need each other to complete a task

n  often a document or image to work on n  e.g., joint authors of a paper

n  Lecture or demo n  person shares info. with users at remote sites

n  questions may be asked n  may wish to keep history and be able to replay

Types of Cooperation (cont.)

n  Conference n  group participation distributed in space

n  at same time or spread out over time

n  Structured work process n  a set of people w/ distinct roles solve task

n  e.g., hiring committee accepts applications, reviews, invites top for interviews, chooses, informs

n  aka “work flow” or “task flow”

11/14/16

6

Types of Cooperation (cont.) n  Meeting and decision support

n  meeting w/ each user working at a computer n  e.g., PDA Brainstorming tool

Classification by Function Cooperative work involves:

Participants who are working Artifacts upon which they work

participants

artifacts of work

control and feedback

P P

A

communication

understanding

direct

11/14/16

7

What interactions does a tool support? Classification by primary function

n  computer-mediated communication n  direct communication between participants

n  meeting and decision support systems n  common understanding

n  shared applications and artefacts n  control and feedback with shared work objects

participants

artifacts of work

control and feedback

P P

A

communication

understanding

direct

meeting and decision support systems

–  common understanding

computer-mediated communication

–  direct communication between participants

shared applications and artifacts

–  control and feedback with shared work objects

Shared Applications and Artifacts Compare purpose of cooperation:

n  meeting rooms and decison support systems – develop shared understanding

n  shared applications and artifacts – work on the same objects

technology similar but primary purpose different many different modalities (time/space matrix)

n  shared windows – synchronous remote/co-located n  shared editors – synchronous remote/co-located n  co-authoring systems – largely asynchronous n  shared diaries – largely asynchronous remote n  shared information – any, but largely asynchronous

11/14/16

8

Shared editors - multiple views

Options: n  same view or different view n  single or separate insertion points

Single view

⇒ scroll wars Multiple views

⇒ loss of context with indexicals

loss of WYSIWIS …

‘I don’t like the line at the top’ ‘but I just wrote that!’

 We will look at some of the  options and how they affect  the style of cooperation.  Thinking about the shared  view vs. different view  options, it at first seems  obvious that we should allow  people to edit different  parts of a document.  This is certainly true while  they are working effectively  independently.

 More adaptable systems are  needed to allow for the wide  variation between groups,  and within the same group  over time.  We will look at some of the  options and how they affect  the style of cooperation.  Thinking about the shared  view vs. different view  options, it at first seems  obvious that we should allow

your screen your colleague’s screen

11/14/16

9

Communication through the artifact When you change a shared application:

n  you can see the effect – feedback

n  your colleagues can too – feedthrough feedthrough enables …

communication through the artifact Examples of feedthrough?

Integrating communication and work

Added: deixis – reference to work objects feedthorough – for communication through the artefact

control and feedback

P P

A

communication

understanding

direct

deixis

feedthrough

11/14/16

10

Classification by Shared information Granularity of sharing

n  chunk size   small – edit same word or sentence   large – section or whole document

n  update frequency   frequent – every character   infrequent – upon explicit ‘send’

Additional dimensions of CSCW

n  Participation: Open/Closed n  Governance: Hierarchical/Flat n  Work Situation or Nature of Task:

Routine/Planned/Novel n  Group type: Homogeneous/diversified;

newly formed (adhoc)/working group

11/14/16

11

Kinds of Awareness in Synchronous Remote CSCW?

n  Social n  Who is here? What are their roles?

n  Task n  What do I know about the task and its

structure?

n  Workspace n  What are others doing?

Workspace Awareness n  What information should be captured? n  How displayed to other users? n  Same task same view (WYSIWIS) n  Same task different view n  Radar view n  Multiple WYSIWIS

n  See what others see

11/14/16

12

Summary: some dimensions of CSCW classification

n  Place/Time n  Collaboration

n  Basic, Coordination, Cooperation, Collaboration

n  Function n  Direct communication, shared understanding, control & feedback

n  Participation: Open/Closed n  Governance: Hierarchical/Flat n  Work Situation: Routine/Planned/Novel n  Group type: Homogeneous/diversified; newly formed

(adhoc)/working group n  Awareness (remote/sync): Social / Task / Workspace

Classification?

11/14/16

13

Classification?

Classification? Coursera

11/14/16

14

Classification? Google docs

Classification? Telepresence

11/14/16

15

Classification? Microsoft Surface

11/14/16

16

Meeting and decision support systems

argumentation tools meeting rooms

shared work surfaces

Some early research - Clearboard

11/14/16

17

Issues for cooperation Argumentation tools

n  concurrency control n  two people access the same node n  one solution is node locking

n  notification mechanisms n  knowing about others' changes

Meeting rooms n  floor holders one or many?

n  floor control policies n  who can write and when?

n  solution: locking + social protocol n  group pointer

n  for deictic reference (this and that)

Now ubiquitous examples of meeting support

11/14/16

18

Implementing groupware

feedback and network delays architectures for groupware

feedthrough and network traffic toolkits, robustness and scaling

Feedback and network delays screen

feedback

user types

local machine

client

remote machine

server

remote application

1 2 3 4 5

7 9 8 6

network

11/14/16

19

Types of architecture centralized – single copy of application and data

n  client-server – simplest case

replicated – copy on each workstation n  also called peer-peer n  + local feedback n  race conditions

Often ‘half way’ architectures: n  local copy of application + central database n  local cache of data for feedback n  some hidden locking

Example – Synchronous CSCW “Collaborative Virtual Environments”

n  Second Life

11/14/16

20

Issues with Social Networking SecondLife, FaceBook, etc.

n  Can these technologies replace human-human interaction? n  can you send a “handshake” or a “hug” n  how does intimacy survive?

n  Are too many social cues lost? n  facial expressions and body language for enthusiasm, disinterest, anger n  will new cues develop? e.g., :)

Trust in CMC (Olsens, UMich) n  Outcome:

n  Prisoner’s dilemma

n  Study 1 n  F2F best n  VMC = f2f, but took longer n  Text Chat never trust

n  Study 2 n  CMC getting acquainted leads to higher trust

11/14/16

21

Exertion Interfaces (Mueller)

Exertion Interfaces (Mueller)

Qualitative self-report measures of social bonding – greater for exertion interface compared to desktop keyboard interface.

11/14/16

22

Groupware Success & Failures

Grudin

Groupware Failures n  Why does groupware fail?

n  disparity between workers & beneficiaries n  threats to existing power structures n  insufficient critical mass n  violation of social taboos n  rigidity that counters common practice or

exceptions

11/14/16

23

Success/Failure of Groupware n  Depends on competing alternatives

n  collaborators down the hall or across country?

n  If users are committed to system, etiquette & conventions will evolve n  tend to arise from cultural & task background n  users from different orgs or cultural contexts may

clash n  Synchronous systems that work well for 2 users may be

less effective w/ more users

CSCW Exercise

n  Form teams n  Brainstorm a new groupware extension

for one of your projects (10 mins) n  Sketch the UI n  Classify it

11/14/16

24

55

Homework I7 Heuristic Evaluation

n  Each of you will evaluate three projects (each project gets 9 reviews).

n  ASAP – check to make sure you can run the interface. n  Contact me and the project members if any problems.

n  You are to evaluate using heuristic evaluation as covered in Nielsen. n  Answer how well the interface meets each of the criteria. n  Write 1-2 page report on each project covering at least 10 issues

(positive or negative). Clarity is important (screen shots where possible). For problems, classify them as Cosmetic, Minor, Major, or Catastrophe.

n  Post each review on a separate web page and email the relevant URL to the appropriate team members.

n  Work through the 3 tasks used in paper prototyping, unless otherwise specified

11/14/16

25

Heuristic Evaluation & I7

57

Nielsen’s Heuristics 1. Simple and Natural Dialogue

n  “Less is More” / KISS n  Omit extraneous info, graphics, features

11/14/16

26

Nielsen’s Heuristics 2. Speak the User’s Language

n  Use common words, not techie jargonn  But use domain-specific terms where

appropriaten  Don’t put limits on user defined namesn  Allow aliases/synonyms in command

languagesn  Metaphors are useful but may mislead

Nielsen’s Heuristics 3. Minimize User Memory Load

n  Use menus, not command languagesn  Use combo boxes, not textboxesn  Use generic commands where possible

(Open, Save, Copy Paste)n  All needed information should be visible

11/14/16

27

Nielsen’s Heuristics 4. Consistency n  Principle of Least Surprise

n  Similar things should look and act similarn  Different things should look different

n  Other propertiesn  Size, location, color, wording, ordering, …

n  Command/argument ordern  Prefix vs. postfix

n  Follow platform standardsn  Kinds of Consistency

n  Internaln  Externaln  Metaphorical

Nielsen’s Heuristics 5. Feedback n  Keep user informed of system state

n  Cursor changen  Selection highlightn  Status bar

n  Response timen  < 0.1 s: seems instantaneousn  0.1-1 s: user notices, but no feedback neededn  1-10 s: display busy cursor or other feedbackn  > 10 s: display progress bar

11/14/16

28

Nielsen’s Heuristics 6. Clearly Marked Exits

n  Provide undon  Long operations should be cancelablen  All dialogs should have a cancel button

Nielsen’s Heuristics 7. Shortcuts

n  Provide easily-learned shortcuts for frequent operationsn  Keyboard acceleratorsn  Command abbreviationsn  Stylesn  Bookmarksn  History

11/14/16

29

Nielsen’s Heuristics 8. Good Error Messages n  Be precise; restate user’s input

n  Not “Cannot open file”, but “Cannot open file named paper.doc”

n  Give constructive helpn  why error occurred and how to fix it

n  Be polite and non-blamingn  Not “fatal error”, not “illegal”

n  Hide technical details (stack trace) until requested

Nielsen’s Heuristics 9. Prevent Errors n  Selection is less error-prone than typingn  Disable illegal commandsn  Description Error

n  different things/commands should look and act different

n  Mode Error n  Eliminate modesn  Visibility of moden  Spring-loaded or temporary modes

11/14/16

30

Nielsen’s Heuristics 10. Help and Documentation n  Model

1.  Searching 2.  Understanding 3.  Applying

n  Important features n  Index n  Overview map n  Help visible while user is applying n  Describe confirmatory feedback

Norman: Visibility

n  aka “Obviousness” n  The correct parts must be visible. n  They must convey the correct message. n  Impacts learnability. n  How different from affordance? n  Examples?

11/14/16

31

Homework I7 Heuristic Evaluation

n  Each of you will evaluate three projects (each project gets 9 reviews).

n  ASAP – check to make sure you can run the interface. n  Contact me and the project members if any problems.

n  You are to evaluate using heuristic evaluation as covered in Nielsen. n  Answer how well the interface meets each of the criteria. n  Write 1-2 page report on each project covering at least 10 issues

(positive or negative). Clarity is important (screen shots where possible). For problems, classify them as Cosmetic, Minor, Major, or Catastrophe.

n  Post each review on a separate web page and email the relevant URL to the appropriate team members.

n  Work through the 3 tasks used in paper prototyping, unless otherwise specified

70

Project Topic T11 Kenny, Eric, Sebastian Stub hub

2 Alex G, Calvin, Pavel x 2 Textbook resale3 Nick, David, Alex L, Bo-Ren Multilingual JFK4 Jenny, Jacques, Suhani Music player5 Noah, Jon, Bahar, Melina MyCampus6 Kevin A, Jacob T OS Permissions7 Daniel, Kevin Z Gamified scheduler8 Jacob VH, Cody OCRemix

Tester ON P1 P2 P3Altschuler, Kevin 6 4 2 7Appleby, Noah 5 4 6 3Bond, Nicholas (Nick) 3 8 1 2Chen, Bo-Ren 3 8 2 6Corbett, Jonathan (Jon) 5 7 4 6Deschamps, Sebastian 1 6 5 8Gimmi, Alexander 2 1 3 4Haji-Sheikhi, Bahar 5 8 6 7Hennessy, Daniel 7 5 8 1Hersey, David 3 2 1 5Krug, Kenneth (Kenny) 1 3 2 7LaPierre, Jennifer (Jenny) 4 3 1 2Lim, Alexander 3 4 5 6Mathieu, Jacques 4 3 7 5Pomerantz, Calvin 2 1 3 4Potapov, Pavel 2 5 6 7Sadikov, Pavel 2 8 1 3Sayegh, Melina 5 2 7 4Shah, Suhani 4 5 6 8Taylor, Jacob 6 7 8 1Tseng, Eric M. 1 2 3 4Van Heemst, Jacob 8 5 6 7Wetherby, Cody 8 1 2 3Zhou, Kevin 7 8 4 5

11/14/16

32

To do

n  Read n  Industry design guidelines (2 papers) n  Accessibility (review Benyan 4.2)

n  Start I7 (due 1 week)